CoinFacts Challenge

Good evening everyone. We are acutely aware of the pain that is being inflicted over the removal of some CoinFacts images and we will address it fully in the coming days.

One quick note: Please keep it civil.

I've deleted a few very nasty things in the last few hours and I'm about to try out this new thing I've been hearing a lot of good things about lately called "sleep". Please treat this message board like it's our living room, no matter how upset we've managed to make you.

Thanks! It was a pleasure meeting so many of you this week in Orlando!

I’d like to add, that a friend of mine who attended the Luncheon told me the reasons for why you removed the “View All Imahes” option. And I must say, your reasoning behind it is dead on and great thinking. I would remove many images, but not all.

@BrettPCGS said:
Good evening everyone. We are acutely aware of the pain that is being inflicted over the removal of some CoinFacts images and we will address it fully in the coming days.

Well thanks for being brave enough to post. However, I think instead of writing "the removal of some CoinFacts images" you should have written, "removal of the the vast majority of Coinfacts images".

There were some dates of coins in the old version of coinfacts that had 50 or more images displayed of various grades and color classes (which allowed for a lot of research and analysis to take place) now there are only 3. And those 3 are always just the latest graded top grades. So the vast majority of CoinFacts images are now gone. That's a 95% reduction of the number of images displayed in Coinfacts.

All of the collectors I know use Coinfacts to drum up EXCITEMENT on a coin. To see what kind of coins could be available in their price ranges in order to buy it!! I myself have found some pretty coins in coinfacts which i then tried to hunt down to make huge offers to the owners (when I could find the owner). The old Coinfacts led to many MORE sales!!! I dont know anybody who looked at Coinfacts trying to find dupes to lowball grade rarities -- most collectors were bothered by dupe images and wanted them removed just so they are not seeing the same coin over and over. I remember one listing in coinfacts had the same coin photo'd and displayed 10 times at the exact same grade! I would have rather seen these dupe photos removed (just for cleanliness reasons) and just see the latest photo, latest grade displayed. We all know that grading is subjective and grades can rise or fall over time, seeing a dupe image at a different grade is not some sort of red flag to us collectors out here. Most assume the current grade is the more correct one and grades can change over time as standards change.

Couldn't this whole problem have been solved by simply removing any old duplicate image from Coinfacts and just the latest (current) grade and image be kept?

I know for me, I would look every day at the "Recent Coinfacts Images" page to see what new stuff could be coming onto the market. I would scan for things I like and try to BUY THEM!!! Coinfacts led me to much more SPENDING!!! You take away coinfacts and I can guarantee I wont be spending as much money on coins. Multiply that statistic by 100,000 active numismatists.

If the dealers that complained about being unable to sell their high-priced newly-made grade rarities (due to the showing of their coins with the previously lower grade) had simply returned the old cert label (as we all agreed to do) then the old cert number and image would have been automatically removed from both the Cert Verification Database and from Coinfacts -- end of problem!

In any case, I think the theory that an old photo of an upgraded coin was holding back sales of a modern grade rarity is a faulty one. Any experienced person in numismatics has known about the upgrade game for years. This is not some sort of new paradigm.

The only thing that holds back sales are too high (astronomical) prices in an overall declining market, not a coins history. I think that the dealers that complained will find this out when they do NOT see sales and prices exploding upwards on their super high-priced grade-rarities after this bad decision on the downgrade of Coinfacts. Removing all the images from Coinfacts will NOT help them sell more $20,000 grade rarities. An old photo and old grade of a coin simply has no clout in coin sales, this kind of stuff with upgrades has been going on for decades -- we've all seen it and we all know it.

The real issue is the grade rarities are priced too high, the collector base is aging and therefore declining, and the economy is causing wealth to be more and more concentrated in the top 1/10th of 1%. Most middle class (garden variety) collectors (the bulk of the collector base) just dont have $20,000 to throw around on a common-date modern grade-rarity. So there are fewer and fewer people willing or able to pay $20,000, $40,000, or $100,000 for a common coin with only a grade rarity label making it valuable. Plus, with gradeflation and slowing rising top populations over time, these kinds of coins tend not to hold their value over the long term, so they are generally not good investments.

Here is a good example of what happens to the prices of common coin modern grade rarities over time (def. exacerbated with common modern coins)

So it sounds like, because some dealers are (apparently) lazy (that is not willing to mail back the old label when crackouts are done) pcgs (and these complaining dealers) have shot themselves in the foot, and hurt the entire coin hobby. This is the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Your theory on the cause of slow sales is flawed.

I know for me, I will be spending a LOT LESS money on coins going forward without a useful Coinfacts -- simply because Coinfacts was a PROMOTION of coins and helped me find new coins that I wanted to buy. Now it will be much harder for me to find new coins to spend money on and my excitement will be greatly diminished (mainly because I wont have an easy way to find out what is out there, and what was newly made).

So dealers, listen up, be prepared for a DROP in sales because of this decision. Someday soon dealers will realize that Coinfacts was a free PROMOTION of their high priced coins and by killing Coinfacts, dealers are hurting themselves and the hobby.

And because the marketplace movement (buying and selling) of coins is the lifeblood of PCGS, PCGS will also be hurt by this.

I know for me, my enthusiasm has been effectively crushed by this fork in the road. A friend of mine told me because of this, he's considering retiring all his registry sets, selling all his coins, and doing something else for fun and entertainment. I can't blame him.

Some folks are passionate about the removal of the see all images feature but I believe, as vocal as they may be, the percentage of CoinFact views that involved that aspect of the app was in the single digits. At least that was what was told to the PCGS members at the luncheon.
Raise your hand if change makes you giddy.
I thought so.
Over

I think one assumption that was a dangerous one for PCGS to make was that the 3% use of "show all" made it not that valuable. CF is used most often for looking up prices, because it's quick, easy, and effective, so much so that the number of uses for pricing dwarfs all other use cases. That this is the case doesn't mean that the other use cases aren't important. Look at the apps you have in your phone or features on your car that you rarely use, but are really glad that you have.

As a collector, when I pull up CF images, it's to benchmark a potential purchase against other samples of the same or similar grades. Most recently, I used it to try and determine how common or scarce a particular die stage of a particular die marriage was, and was able to do this effectively. Another collector in my niche has used it to study die marriages of Morgan dates that are to expensive to acquire in high grade in quantity, shedding light on errors out holes in the VAM catalog.

Finally, once of the questions I posed in the Q&A thread had to do with crowd sourcing the integrity of the population reports, which seemed to be well-received. By not allowing people to view all images in CF, you prevent this from happening, and forego a lot of free labor that would otherwise be available.

A terrible move by the new PCGS leaders. While Ask Me Anything generated goodwill among forum members, this change has been a severe misstep. We all make mistakes. How effective we are is shown by how quickly we move to correct them.
For me the images were a key visual in my current search for that “just right” look in a low population coin. The PCGS images were high quality and made me proud to be a PCGS only collector.
Here is hoping that you can address the reason that the images were deleted and give loyal PCGS collectors that great tool that Coin Facts images provided.

please restore coinfacts with all images plus new images being available
these are some of the reasons pcgs leads the industry and it's sad to see them fall to the side
"please"
restore coinfacts to it's prior level of excellence

everything in life is but merely on loan to us by our appreciation....lose your appreciation and see

It’s nice to know how important Coin Facts was to the hobby. When it started, who would have thought how important it had become. Ron Guth, Phil Arnold and PCGS had done a incredible job with the site in the past and had a lot to be proud of.

It has influenced my collecting a lot and will continue to do so, one way or the other. I like cataloging items to expand knowledge. My thinking has been to get eye appealing and rare exonumia crossed from ATS and listed on PCGS CoinFacts to share with everyone and let them better understand what is out there. ATS is by far the leader in exonumia but Coin Facts was the PCGS ace in the hole for me. However, without the images there, you might as well host the images yourself in which case another site or not crossing becomes more attractive, especially given the rise of PhotoVision. This change is like removing PCGS’s only major advantage when trying to get into these markets. Even if this change is temporary, the fact it has been done and is not a mistake means it can happen again so it is a bit of a sobering shock to my collecting approach. Hopefully the things can go back to the great site it was, but with an appropriate handling of the stale image concern.

Regarding the duplicate and stale photos, crowdsourcing identification and removal of duplicates is a nice approach that requires some time and investment, but it maintains Coin Facts as huge advantage for PCGS. Without Coin Facts photos, it’s much harder to see how PCGS can gain traction in areas dominated by others at the moment.

Brett - The photos allowed me to evaluate wish coins i was going to buy and whether i was going to pay a premium. For example, if i was going to purchase a 1815 quarter in AU and 2 dealers are offering 1915 quarters in that grade. I can compare those being offered to the pictures shown on Coin Facts whereas - I now don't have any place to compare whats being offered to what went thru PCGS over the years.
Furthermore, I like to rank the top 10 in the series in the series that I collect and many times i refer to Coin Facts to compare this information and its no longer available.
Also, when i travel to shows, i can refer to this information at coin shows to have available at shows or lot viewing. No longer available.
Also, i was involved with putting a book on a specific series together and we needed pictures for certain examples. I guess that not having those pictures available will slow down book publishing and intro of new resources to collectors.
Lastly, I collect coin in my series by die marriages (and die states) and I compare the die marriages and die states photos on Coin Facts for proper attributable to coins I am considering purchasing. I do have all the books but most books only show one coin and Coin Facts show examples in various grades and this information is no longer available.
Losing all this available information will require me to find all these information elsewhere. Not a good decision by PCGS in my opinion.

I’ve been thinking about the returning the insert to fix the pops issue. I’ve started to wonder if crack out submitters don’t want to fix the pops, and so purposely don’t send in the inserts. When you finally get a grade bump, having more coins at the next grade down means the top coins are even more rare and desirable compared to those one grade down. Am I thinking too much?

@EastonCollection said:
Brett - The photos allowed me to evaluate wish coins i was going to buy and whether i was going to pay a premium. For example, if i was going to purchase a 1815 quarter in AU and 2 dealers are offering 1915 quarters in that grade. I can compare those being offered to the pictures shown on Coin Facts whereas - I now don't have any place to compare whats being offered to what went thru PCGS over the years.
Furthermore, I like to rank the top 10 in the series in the series that I collect and many times i refer to Coin Facts to compare this information and its no longer available.
Also, when i travel to shows, i can refer to this information at coin shows to have available at shows or lot viewing. No longer available.
Also, i was involved with putting a book on a specific series together and we needed pictures for certain examples. I guess that not having those pictures available will slow down book publishing and intro of new resources to collectors.
Lastly, I collect coin in my series by die marriages (and die states) and I compare the die marriages and die states photos on Coin Facts for proper attributable to coins I am considering purchasing. I do have all the books but most books only show one coin and Coin Facts show examples in various grades and this information is no longer available.
Losing all this available information will require me to find all these information elsewhere. Not a good decision by PCGS in my opinion.

Also,, I used those photos to determine the rarities of various dime marriages and coins. For specialists, the POP info is just the beginning or research in degerming rarity but not the end game. The photos told more of the story i.e. grade availability and eye appeal availability. Again, this is a huge loss for the coin collecting community and collectors. I guess the only winners are the crack out dealers. Not good.

@Zoins said:
I’ve been thinking about the returning the insert to fix the pops issue. I’ve started to wonder if crack out submitters don’t want to fix the pops, and so purposely don’t send in the inserts. When you finally get a grade bump, having more coins at the next grade down means the top coins are even more rare and desirable compared to those one grade down. Am I thinking too much?

My theory is it's pure laziness.

You want fewer coins 1 grade down to show there are fewer options for cheaper alternates.

Just ask yourself this, which 66 is rarer, and which would you be more inclined to buy?

A coin with pop 1 at 66, pop 1 at 65, and pop 1 at 64 ...
OR ...
A coin with pop 1 at 66, pop 125 at 65, pop 922 at 64?

Ultimately, you have one side that wants the information available to make better grading decisions and you have another side that is worried about profits (or possibly embarrassment bc of grading inconsistencies on display).
So you have to ask yourself, which decision is being made for the benefit of most users: hiding useful information or making it readily available?

Edited to add: How is this functionally different than when CoinFacts began to include eBay sold prices and dealers fought against it until they got a Hide eBay Prices button?

Awesome news!! I gotta say, the more upset we are about something, the more we have to show it, to let yall know how upset we are So take our reactions with a grain of salt, and thanks for hopefully reverting to showing all the pictures again!

@jwitten said:
Awesome news!! I gotta say, the more upset we are about something, the more we have to show it, to let yall know how upset we are So take our reactions with a grain of salt, and thanks for hopefully reverting to showing all the pictures again!

They need to understand there's nobody here that's not old and crotchety.

Transparency builds confidence and trust. The actions taken undermine both of these values with the collector community. What is done in response to the overwhelming negative feedback will be a test for PCGS’s values and mission.

I’d gladly pay for the old Coinfacts. Have a Coinfacts that is free which is the product you offer presently.Have a subscription Coinfacts which was yesterday’s product. This way most people will be happy. PCGS generates revenue and dealers will be happy that most people won’t have access to every image unless they’re willing to pay for the information.

Crackout artists/dealers need to play by the rules. If they consistently throw money to PCGS to benefit themselves by way of crackouts why should we as collectors have to suffer by losing one of our most cherished feature of CoinFacts? How much does it cost the dealer to send a coin in 19 times? And then complain because the TrueView shows up 19 times. They should do their job and **RETURN THE OLD CERTS **.

@Zoins said:
I’ve been thinking about the returning the insert to fix the pops issue. I’ve started to wonder if crack out submitters don’t want to fix the pops, and so purposely don’t send in the inserts. When you finally get a grade bump, having more coins at the next grade down means the top coins are even more rare and desirable compared to those one grade down. Am I thinking too much?

My theory is it's pure laziness.

You want fewer coins 1 grade down to show there are fewer options for cheaper alternates.

Just ask yourself this, which 66 is rarer, and which would you be more inclined to buy?

A coin with pop 1 at 66, pop 1 at 65, and pop 1 at 64 ...
OR ...
A coin with pop 1 at 66, pop 125 at 65, pop 922 at 64?

Good point. If it really does come down to just laziness. Can returning certs be made easier? There would still need to be a solution for what’s already out there.

Ummm, the previous version of CoinFacts, with all the images and the nice layout, was astronomically better than this current, dead-looking version with a trifle of images. If current PCGS staff cannot understand this then they have gone a long way backwards. CoinFacts was the primary reason why PCGS stock prices went to almost $30/share. I don't see how PCGS is benefiting itself, or the community it has created by taking all these backwards steps.

I guess I need to add my protest. Coinfacts was an invaluable research tool for me. I'm in utter disbelief that we can no longer view more than a few pics of each coin/variety. I'm speaking as one who has spent over $10,000 in grading fees in 2018.

I had been using coinfacts for a while before I randomly decided to click on the "See All Images" button. What I saw amazed me! A whole spectrum of grades for any random date/mm (and even more esoteric stuff like Colonials). This was an incredibly valuable tool! Being able to see the characteristics of many examples of a specific issue was very helpful. I haven't read much about the reasons behind the decision, but would ask the powers that be to seriously consider the value they are taking away from the collecting community. Whatever inconsistencies the images revealed are only due to PCGS's long reign as the leader of our hobby. The embarrassment of a few, due to the side effects of the crack-out game, shouldn't outweigh the knowledge coinfacts can provide better than any other source.

"Render therfore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22: 21

I don't think there is much question at this point about how the community feels about the change.

it is overwhelmingly against and honestly, there doesn't seem to be any strong argument for the new layout.

PCGS ought to listen to their "constituents" and give the people what they want. It is simple; Bring back the old CoinFacts!

The resubmissions are a problem and the repeating images of a coin is a problem but it is a SMALL problem. If that is the reason for the change then this is a strong example of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. This has become a textbook case of "The Cure is Worse Than the Disease".

I did attend the PCGS Luncheon and this was the only change I wasn't happy with. As others have said, it is good to be able to examine pictures of a lot of coins of similar grades to see how a coin you own or are considering measures up to them.

I am very happy Brett is flexible enough to reconsider this decision, this is a very good thing.

@RichieURich said:
I did attend the PCGS Luncheon and this was the only change I wasn't happy with. As others have said, it is good to be able to examine pictures of a lot of coins of similar grades to see how a coin you own or are considering measures up to them.

I am very happy Brett is flexible enough to reconsider this decision, this is a very good thing.

Did he already say that they are reconsidering?

Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.

Civility is important. Understanding grading and its ramifications are important. And having written that means there has to be a solid and firm commitment to the belief that grading is not just subjective, but it must be an evolutionary process whereby the objective of describing the state of preservation of a coin and translating that to grade is captured to the point that a valuation can be established. Not all coins at a specific grade are created equal. However, the subjective component is about the coin, the appearance, and how it has been disturbed either through circulation or storage and the look often does not reduce to a number within a grade range. And that is a moving target and not subject weakening standards.

Collectors like to blame TPG for a subjective component that is not absolute. Because I believe what I have written, that is part of the need for Coin Facts to retain pictures. Coins that have been graded, regardless of the number of submissions, need to have a transparent past in terms of history that may in part memorialize the decision behind the assigned grade at that time. While most collectors will complain about the Coin Facts change, the real challenge is for collectors to accept the grading is subjective and needs to be an evolutionary process. We can improve the grading process even with a subjective component.

Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

@RichieURich said:
I did attend the PCGS Luncheon and this was the only change I wasn't happy with. As others have said, it is good to be able to examine pictures of a lot of coins of similar grades to see how a coin you own or are considering measures up to them.

I am very happy Brett is flexible enough to reconsider this decision, this is a very good thing.

Did he already say that they are reconsidering?

His second sentence says they are aware of the pain and intend to address it. So I think that they are thinking it over.

@RichieURich said:
I did attend the PCGS Luncheon and this was the only change I wasn't happy with. As others have said, it is good to be able to examine pictures of a lot of coins of similar grades to see how a coin you own or are considering measures up to them.

I am very happy Brett is flexible enough to reconsider this decision, this is a very good thing.

Did he already say that they are reconsidering?

His second sentence says they are aware of the pain and intend to address it. So I think that they are thinking it over.

The language used was incredibly vague and could mean almost anything from an actual fix to "we understand - sorry for your loss."

@logger7 said:
If those making this decision or pressuring the company to do it, first at NGC now at PCGS, how doesn't that violate PNG's code of ethics that trumpets "Integrity, Knowledge, and Responsibility? If those who made the decisions are members of PNG I would think a complaint with them would be warranted. https://pngdealers.org/code-of-ethics/

Look at those ethics codes; the major ones are negatively affected by these changes from grading companies and their information being de-linked from individual coins. https://pngdealers.org/code-of-ethics/

I absolutely loved being able to pull up all of the images - and used that feature all the time! Really disappointed to see that it was removed, and really hope that it returns soon!

With respect to the multiple pics/upgrade history, I will say this: I was recently considering purchasing an MS67+ Barber dime that was newly listed in a dealer’s inventory. But seeing 11 pics of the same dime graded as MS67 prior to the coin making MS67+ turned me off as a buyer, and I decided to pass. Maybe it shouldn’t have affected my decision, but it did.

The reality, however, it that some coins will upgrade if re-evaluated. PCGS’s reconsideration service would be pointless if that were not the case. And, as long as there are auction records, some of those upgrades will be publicly identifiable. Unlike the situation with the dime, however, I have pursued and purchased coins that had upgraded since their last auction appearance. Not being able to see that someone had to send a coin in over and over and over to get an upgrade apparently makes a difference to me

So, an effort to remove duplicate images would seem to me to go a long way towards addressing that particular issue. But I imagine that would/will be a very time consuming task, assuming that the duplicate images will have to be manually identified (and assuming the old Cert numbers are still active). However, as some have pointed out, such an exercise would also make it possible to clean up the population reports a bit!

Bottom line, I really hope PCGS gives serious consideration to finding a way to bring back access to the photos in a manner that also addresses the concerns that prompted the change to begin with.